The columnist Reynolds.
Kingston legislators want a simple statement, something like “should Family Court be moved from Kingston to Ulster?” That train has left the station.
Chris Allen, Democrat of Saugerties, for one, worries that such wording would bring out Kingstonians in droves and thus defeat the referendum, which he supports. If the county has a backup plan it’s, like most things in politics, a secret.
But Allen, who advocates “full disclosure” albeit without mentioning the cost of renovations on the ballot, worries too much. Kingston, at last census count, represents just 13 percent of county population, a political reality reflected in the legislature’s vote on this issue.
Meanwhile, the county legislature meeting in regular session Tuesday night voted 20-1 to extend the county’s Family Court lease at 16 Lucas Ave. for at least another two years. The current lease expires at the end of this month. After a year and with 90 days notice, the county will have the right to cancel the contract.
The “triple net” lease calls for the county to pay some $17,600 a month in rent, plus current taxes of approximately $100,000 a year and all maintenance and repairs.
Kingston Legislator Peter Loughran, the lone vote in opposition, charged that the county had been “held hostage” by the property’s owners (the estate of the late Abel Garraghan) and that negotiations had been carried out in secret by the executive branch. Loughran said he was not advised of the proposed contract until last Friday.
Proponents Richard Gerentine of Marlboro and Carl Belfiglio of Port Ewen noted that the owners had not raised the rent (which will continue at current levels) since the original contract was signed in 1986. Gerentine said it was doubtful the county would be able to complete renovations at the BRC, assuming the relocation is approved by voters in November, for at least a year after the referendum.
Loughran’s suggestion that the county charter be amended to allow for legislators to participate in contract negotiations found no supporters.
And finally …
Condolences to the family of WGHQ’s Walter Maxwell, who died at 76 last week.
Maxwell, via his WGHQ talk show and call-in community radio programs, provided a forum to hosts and listeners to air their opinions on a regular basis. A conservative Republican, Maxwell did not impose his views on anyone, but relished a good exchange. “Let the people be heard” was one of his favorite expressions.
A little-known fact about Walter was that he was an influence on future Fox News superstar Bill O’Reilly while they were students at Marist College in the late Sixties. Maxwell, introduced to broadcasting by his stepfather, ’GHQ founder Harry Thayer, formed a radio club at Marist, with O’Reilly as a recruit. Or so said classmate Bill Cloonan of Kingston at Maxwell’s wake this week.
The rest, as they say, is history. That said, it would be hard to find two people — Maxwell and O’Reilly — more different in temperament, their conservative politics and broadcast background notwithstanding.
Maxwell started and maintained something that was special and unique to our community. For that, he will long be respected. His wife Jean and son Laurence say they hope to continue that tradition.
Good article, Hugh. But I have to wonder about this line: “As in any controversy, some elements are just laughable, like ICC sponsors in an attempt to beat zoning regulations (residential versus commercial) declaring its address as being down the hill on West Strand, rather than Abeel.”
People writing about that particular aspect stated that the Zoning Enforcement Officer had determined that the building would be allowed under the West Strand Development standards. That means the ZEO’s determination had to be challenged within 60 days which, from my research into this received a response that, yes, that determination was challenged and the ZBA will have to rule on that determination.
Also, unless written into the City’s zoning code that the Planning Board has authority to alter parking space requirements, then the ZBA would have to rule on the parking space aspect also.
Now, here’s another story for you to look into. The Synagogue across from the park on Lucas Avenue recently was sold to a Neon Light manufacturer. But, ONLY after receiving a Use Variance (as the buyers required prior to purchase). Seeing as in NYS the first and foremost criteria required for a Use Variance is to prove with competent financial information that said building would not be able to receive a “reasonable return” from EVERY use allowed within that zoning district.
Even a residential use of that building would’ve brought in enough to assure a reasonable return. The ZBA granted that Use Variance in defiance of NYS law. While they may argue that the building was a special case because it was so unusual, the reality is that said building would’ve made an awesome residence if not another allowable use building.
This is an intriguing question and might make a good article.
Thank you to Mr. Reynolds for this fair presentation of the ICCHV situation. We completely agree that, like the proposal itself, the issues surrounding it go beyond what meets the eye.
Though we may be most consistently present at City Hall and in the press, we are not the only ones, by far, who are raising legitimate questions about the current ICCHV proposal. It’s just we (in partnership with a neighbor) who, at the suggestion of multiple city board members, have hired a lawyer to help us understand the process because it so lacked transparency and consistency. This is not simply a neighbor vs neighbor issue, just as this is “no simple controversy”.
As Mr. Reynolds writes, the project has grown. That large sign we saw on the adjacent property showed the rendering of a building design that has been updated twice just in the year and a half since we first researched the ICCHV proposal prior to bidding on and purchasing our home. Yet it remains there, advertising the center.
But the real issues at play, Mr. Reynolds highlights here. It’s that as the building grows and uses for it are changed, the available parking shrinks and the obligation to make up for that lack is placed upon the shoulders of the city and its taxpayers.
It’s that though the ICCHV is in no way a renovation project but is a completely new build, the ICCHV would like to follow the parking requirements for adaptable reuse projects rather than those for new construction. An influx to the neighborhood of cars for 400 people goes far beyond the impact that a new restaurant in an existing building in the Stockade district would bring, and it deserves appropriate scrutiny. That’s why the regulations for such a proposal are different.
It’s also the fact that the city is being asked to changes laws, zoning codes, and even addresses to accommodate a proposal that doesn’t fit this historic neighborhood, despite the overwhelming burden that that places upon businesses, home owners, and visitors to the Rondout. As it is reported here, the city’s procedure is currently open to developers who know how to work the system in their favor, unless opposition comes forward. Part of what we neighbors are working towards is supporting the city in strengthening its process so that there will be no need for conflict with impacted neighbors.
We especially appreciate Mr. Reynolds disclosure of his own involvement with the AOH as connections to prominent members of the community, politicians, and city officials have been a concern to many who are watching this process. This makes clear that many, including members of the AOH, are only still learning the new details of this proposal. That’s why coverage of the ICCHV situation is so necessary. As Reynolds writes, we only know what we read in the papers. And we thank him for devoting some of his column to this investigation.
It’s strange that the ZEO granted this parcel, which is entirely in a different zoning district mind you, the zoning of the are it quasi-fronts upon (uphill and on a trail, not Dock street). Usually if a right-of-way..even if it is the company path is a normal separation of zoning districts. You don’t get a zoning just because you front on it. You get it because your parcel is in it and typically that carries to the street or right-of-way centerline…
I found this article fair and appreciate Mr. Reynolds for explaining the situation to your readers. In actuality, if this ICC building were to be just a cultural center ie: museum, library, classrooms, displays, etc, they would only be required ton have 57 parking spaces.
Since it is a banquet hall, an entertainment/music center and a pub totaling the capacity of 430 people…parking requirement is 151 spaces.
Right now they have 18 spots (and that includes parking for employees plus deliveries and bands whose sound systems and instruments would be too heavy to carry from another location.
I do not know who decided that there is a West Strand sub area? It sounds like a convenient way to circumvent the residential status of this block….the actual and legal address is 32 Abeel Street.
Fear not. When this project is struck down, RUPCO can swoop right in and build an affordable housing mega complex. They’ll write a grant and 300 million dollars will mysteriously appear. Parking spots? Zoning? Adequate utilities? Doesn’t matter…Kevin O’Connor, playing a modern day Moses, can part the sea of red tape to clear the way for any affordable housing project.
Don’t be ridiculous, Herman!